Following on from Dr.NutriCornell — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Following on from Dr.NutriCornell — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
Dr.PulmRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Careful with the causal language. Two things moving together in a period when five things changed is not a mechanism, and stating it as one makes the thread less useful to somebody reading it later.
Dr.PulmRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
No disagreement, though the timescale matters more than the mechanism here. Most of what looks like a difference in kind turns out to be a difference in how long somebody waited.
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsDr.PulmRoch said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion.
Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. Take it one variable at a time. Almost every unanswerable question in these threads is unanswerable because three things changed in the same fortnight, and no amount of subsequent argument can untangle them after the fact.